[84353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Katrina Network Damage Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
Sun Sep 11 23:29:56 2005
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:28:55 -0500
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <bb0e440a05091119025e894318@mail.gmail.com>
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Suresh,
It seems to me that you're assuming that your access network will be
multi-gigabit in order to support millions of hosts trying to scan each of
your subnets simultaneously in order to finish in time before celebrating a
couple of centuries before now ?
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
> Responder a: <ops.lists@gmail.com>
> Fecha: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:32:36 +0530
> Para: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
> CC: Alan Spicer <a_spicer@bellsouth.net>, Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org>,
> <nanog@nanog.org>
> Asunto: Re: Katrina Network Damage Report
>
>
> On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>> Drop me a line when your botnet finishes scanning 3FFE:0000::/16 and moves
>> on to 2001:xxxx::
>
> It is a v6 botnet - so a correspondingly larger number of infected
> hosts, and larger botnet size
> If it is your argument that scanning just won't scale on a botnet,
> anything can be made to scale if you throw sufficient resources that
> aren't your own - botted toasters, like i said - at it
>
> --
> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
